Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers - News and Discussion

[sea_eagle]

But anyone with a modicum of sense would realise that when it comes to Defence there is one party in the UK that has a better record than the others. And it might shock most but it's Labour.

I don't want to go off topic but one reason the above is true is the Tory party was in power for 25 years compared to Labour (under Blair) for 13 years since 1979. Reality is no party has been good for the Armed Forces especially with the end of the cold war.

Looking back, the Royal Navy manning and Destroyers/Frigates numbers were 70,000 with 50 ships in 1985, 40,000 and 25 ships by 2005 and 30,000 and 19 ships in 2015. (Excluding all other ships and boats.)

[Pymes75]

I don't want to go off topic but one reason the above is true is the Tory party was in power for 25 years compared to Labour (under Blair) for 13 years since 1979. Reality is no party has been good for the Armed Forces especially with the end of the cold war.

Don't disagree with that (I ain't a Labour supporter). The one Defence Review I could sign up to (and would again) was SDR 1998. It actually set out to create a balanced armed forces with a healthy expeditionary capability - including the very carriers that form the basis of this thread! If only Labour had funded the proposed force structure properly (therefore avoiding the need to cut other areas in 2004) and not spent a fortune invading Iraq!

[jonas]

But anyone with a modicum of sense would realise that when it comes to Defence there is one party in the UK that has a better record than the others. And it might shock most but it's Labour. The only reason this thread is even here is because of a Labour government.

As for the Conservatives I give you the 1957 Defence White Paper, 1981 Nott Review, Options for Change 1990, Defence Costs Study 1994 (that brought PFI in), SDSR 2010 and SDSR 2015. Quite how when presented with the 6 most disastrous defence reviews of the last 70 years anyone still thinks the Conservative Party is any good for the countries defence is beyond me.

If only Labour could get rid of it's Looney Left...

Amen. I can't understand why anyone connected with the armed forces would ever vote Tory when they have happily presided over multiple defence reviews that planned cut entire military capabilities. The entire party is duplicitous.

Easy to say, but in that case give us an alternative choice at the moment.

[Timmymagic]

I don't want to go off topic but one reason the above is true is the Tory party was in power for 25 years compared to Labour (under Blair) for 13 years since 1979. Reality is no party has been good for the Armed Forces especially with the end of the cold war.

Agreed on the off topic bit. But I would add the corollary of your argument is also true. If they're in power so much.... surely they should be better at doing defence reviews.....

[Timmymagic]

Don't disagree with that (I ain't a Labour supporter).

Me neither. I have a decent Labour MP at the moment. She'll get my vote as she's pretty good, has an unassailable majority, and is one of the ones who will drive the dagger into Corbyn's back. But in reality I'm disenfranchised, none of the parties is fit for purpose. Particularly on defence.

Back to the QE though.....have the on-board F-35 simulators been installed or are these a comparatively minor item to install at a later date? They're obviously not the full motion type. I remember one of the Harrier simulators at Wittering being very small and principally being used for procedure practice. Anyone know the size of the F-35 ones?

[bobp]

Anyone know the size of the F-35 ones?

I read a few years ago it was two ISO containers worth, but not sure which size, and that they would be installed in the Hangar.

[cockneyjock1974]

Nice image of the QE. It looks like the end of the month for sail out as according to the feed the tugs are booked for the 21st to the 24th. Ps I've had this time period confirmed by another source as well.

Also if you zoom in I think you can see information boards on one of the islands.

[QEC Eye in the SKY]

Nice image of the QE. It looks like the end of the month for sail out as according to the feed the tugs are booked for the 21st to the 24th. Ps I've had this time period confirmed by another source as well.

Also if you zoom in I think you can see information boards on one of the islands.

She does look lovely! Can't wait to see her at sea.....

[S M H]

Nice image of the QE. It looks like the end of the month for sail out as according to the feed the tugs are booked for the 21st to the 24th. Ps I've had this time period confirmed by another source as well.

Would tie up with the ex admiralty fuel depot jetty at Invergordon . Cromarty Firth Port Authority usually announce cruse liner bookings of the jetty.

[inch]

21st -24th of june or july ? cockneyjock1974 ,thankyou hope you mean june fella

[cockneyjock1974]

21st -24th of june or july ? cockneyjock1974 ,thankyou hope you mean june fella

This month mate

[inch]

cheers pal

[R686]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/820-nav ... izabeth-2/

Should start happening soon

[abc123]

Are Phalanx CIWS allready installed?

[Thorvicson]

Are Phalanx CIWS allready installed?

No you can see the platforms are empty. Those and the 30mm guns along with the passive systems will be added once the ship gets to Portsmouth. Thinking about that will that mean them turning the ship in the harbour or leaving the harbour to turn round as I doubt a dockyard crane can reach the other side of the ship and I don't think they will use a mobile crane on the flight deck to do it on the seaward side ?

[Timmymagic]

I don't think they will use a mobile crane on the flight deck to do it on the seaward side ?

Neither are massive loads so it wouldn't be that hard to do it.

[cockneyjock1974]

Simulated leaving of Rosyth, looks very complicated, hats off to the tug meisters.

[abc123]

Do you think that QE-class carriers are too weakly armed for anti-air defence? Or, should at least 36 or 48 CAAM missiles be installed? Could that be dole, is there enough free space for that?

[shark bait]

Unconvinced that's the right way to go. We already have perhaps the best kinetic interceptor available sat next to the carrier on board the T45, so I would suggest we're better off investing in non-kinetic countermeasures on board QE, they certainly have a big electrical capacity....

[The Armchair Soldier]

[abc123]

Unconvinced that's the right way to go. We already have perhaps the best kinetic interceptor available sat next to the carrier on board the T45, so I would suggest we're better off investing in non-kinetic countermeasures on board QE, they certainly have a big electrical capacity....

Maybe, but considering that virtually EVERY other aircraft carrier in the world has better AAW capabilities than QE-class, who's right there? Is RN smarter than every other navy in the world- including the USN? In my village, we have an expression: "If your'e sober and the whole village tell's you that your'e drunk, than lie down and get some sleep".


Another question: Will Rosyth Shipyard be used for maintenance and refits of QE-class carriers during their 40-50 years life?

[Caribbean]

Unconvinced that's the right way to go. We already have perhaps the best kinetic interceptor available sat next to the carrier on board the T45, so I would suggest we're better off investing in non-kinetic countermeasures on board QE, they certainly have a big electrical capacity....

I would tend to agree. I suspect that the early directed energy weapon systems will be quite bulky (particularly if they are expected to engage multiple, very high velocity targets) and the QEs are ideal platforms to handle them.

[abc123]

Unconvinced that's the right way to go. We already have perhaps the best kinetic interceptor available sat next to the carrier on board the T45, so I would suggest we're better off investing in non-kinetic countermeasures on board QE, they certainly have a big electrical capacity....

I would tend to agree. I suspect that the early directed energy weapon systems will be quite bulky (particularly if they are expected to engage multiple, very high velocity targets) and the QEs are ideal platforms to handle them.

There's no contradiction between say 48 CAMMs now and 2 "LASERS" in 10 or 15 years... You pull the missiles out and replace them with "LASERS"...

[RetroSicotte]

What Shark Bait more likely means is that right now the budget allowance on them is a lower priority.

Would we want some Aster or CAMM cells on there? Hell yes, NO-ONE would say no.

But compared to getting more CAMM on say, Type 31's? Or paying for more personnel? It's lower priority.

[dmereifield]

This isn't good

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06 ... d-claimed/